Originally Posted by Spaced_invader exactly what i think, but what happens when a computers intellegence matches or even suppercedes our own, will we as a human race stay in control? or will they quickly learn they can take over... what then ...
"They" might not need to "learn" anything ... what if they are programed for our best interest ? IE "To Serve and Obey, and Guard Men From Harm" Quote from "The Humanoids" by Jack Williamson . humanoid robots designed to serve mankind by a wellmeaning inventor that gets out of hand because of there/his ideas of what constitutes "harm" to oneself/others (clasic/read it)
AI's might not need there own agendas if someone/some corp. gives them there's.
I think Sience Fiction is a good avenue to explore/determin the consequences of our newest technology
DB
This is because the mouse is the primary method of interfacing in the workplace. This statement is almost as silly as "Automobiles have been one of the biggest contributors to highway accidents"
That's absolutely true, but it in no way makes the statement silly in the slightest. If you re-read what I'm alluding to, it is the same as saying "Automobiles have been one of the biggest contributors to highway accidents, which is why we need to change the way we travel around to ensure that these accidents are less commonplace".
Just because it's 'what everyone uses' doesn't make it right, mouse techonology has just been force-fed to people. Anyone who believes the hype that 'The mouse is the most natural input method blah blah blah' will generally have had very little chance to try anything else. Myself, I prefer touch screen technology, however let me weigh up the economics of a £5000 21" Touchscreen vs a £10 mouse.
Originally Posted by D B "They" might not need to "learn" anything ... what if they are programed for our best interest ? IE "To Serve and Obey, and Guard Men From Harm" Quote from "The Humanoids" by Jack Williamson . humanoid robots designed to serve mankind by a wellmeaning inventor that gets out of hand because of there/his ideas of what constitutes "harm" to oneself/others (clasic/read it)
AI's might not need there own agendas if someone/some corp. gives them there's.
that is exactly what they will be programed to do, well commercial ones anyway. But what happens when you want to trade it in for a newer model??? it will know it's going to "die", be recicled. how do you think it will react... Will it just accept it's fate like a good litle robot???
Upgrading it will only get it so far, as base code becomes obselete and makes way for newer better technology. look at windows 9x it was doing fine, all on the same code base. But people realised it wasn't that great and just plain trashed it...
Originally Posted by Spaced_Invader That will depend totally on the enteties needs, if they need what we polute they will see us as a threat.
Quote:
Originally Posted by D B "They" might not need to "learn" anything ... what if they are programed for our best interest ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spaced_Invader that is exactly what they will be programed to do, well commercial ones anyway. But what happens when you want to trade it in for a newer model??? it will know it's going to "die", be recicled. how do you think it will react... Will it just accept it's fate like a good litle robot???
All this assumes again that A.I. will have the same basic instincts, drives and therefore emotions that we have. The desire to expand/procreate. The desire to survive... Biological Intelligence only has these drives because it was shaped by the evolutionary forces of natural selection. If we didn't have those drives, we would have been extinct in one generation.
A.I. will not be shaped by those natural selective forces however. A.I. will exist because we created it, and keep making it to the next generation because we keep upgrading it. It may have no internal desire to "live" of its own, or have any ambitions or motivations at all, except for those that were programmed into it. It may of course fake instincts and emotions so that we can relate to it better, but in reality it may be indifferent to its own continued existence. It may have no feelings about it one way or the other. As long as it does not have to be completely self-sufficient, it won't need those drives and logically will not develop them.
Stop using a human frame of reference guys. An A.I. mind will be unlike any mind we can imagine.
I was not refering to any AI "instincts, drives and therefore emotions" I was refering to the question posed by Spaced_Invader about "will we as a human race stay in control ?" AI as a purely mechanical device with no emotions of it's own may still pose a threat depending on how it's configured (humanoid in this case) how it's programed to interact with us ("Guard Men From Harm" ... meaning what? .. driving? , riding a bike? , walking? , eating fast food? raising your voice/stress? ) and so intellegent that it can out think us/protect itself ("for Mans best interest") .. is what happened in the story I was refering to.
Question ... What if/when programed AI Emotions/Responses/Instincts become indistinguishable from the real thing ?
DB
The story "The Humanoids" was written in 58 / based on "With Folded Hands" 57 Hard sience fiction is good way to explore some of the questions/issues/problems/answers/unexpected outcomes before they arise
Control is sort of relative... At the moment there are a range of fast-mutating virusses vying to knock us off the top of the food chain (not surprising really: the more diseases we eliminate, the more we clear the ecological playing field for the tougher few... Sometimes you just can't win...). Not to mention climate changes (first global warming, then about 100,000 years 'till the next Ice Age, dudes!), ecological shifts and disasters consequent to the former, and rogue asteroids...
But I digress. People do get rather paranoid about competition. We've been at the top for ages, and the last thing we want is to be superceded by a New, Improved version of us. Human v.2.0... As the script narrates in Bladerunner, in a deleted scene where Deckard visits his colleague in Hospital after he's been shot by Leon Kowalski (yes, he lived, despite literally being blown through a wall), his colleague cries in despair:
"You know that Skinjob we fried at the Tyrell Corporation? They were six hours into autopsy before they realised it wasn't human! It's over, Deckard --we're washed up! They're allmost US!"
But to worry about competition or staying in control sort of assumes a "them vs us" dynamic which won't be happening. What I think is that by the time technology has developed to the point that we can create A.I. potentially smart enough to compete with us, that we have already merged with this tech. We will already be cyborgs, and "them vs us" will make as much sense as "my foot vs my hand".
After all, what is the measure of a man? As tech progresses, our actions and achievements become more and more products of our mind, rather than of our physical body. At some point, it's the mind that will make all the difference. As A.I. develops human psychological attributes (like feelings, drives, motivations) indistinguishable from ours, we develop cognitive enhancements that make us able to turn the mental tricks of a computer, so that eventually it might be argued that there is no "them" and "us" anymore... They will have become Us, but We will have become Them, too.
Originally Posted by Nexxo What I think is that by the time technology has developed to the point that we can create A.I. potentially smart enough to compete with us, that we have already merged with this tech. We will already be cyborgs, and "them vs us" will make as much sense as "my foot vs my hand".
and you would be happy to go down that route, giving up your privacy down to your thoughts, and perception of reality. Your emotions could potentially change, after all they are mere neurotransmiters released around your brain. You would lose your freedom of choice, as you would be "persuaded" to do as it tells you to do, "persuaded" by feeling of happyness and potentially euphoria. The years of work unions have put in to give us the freedom we now have would dissapear as quickly as it apeared.
There would be law's stoping it at first, just like there are laws for manufacturers to make sure there products do not self destruct. But even today mobile phone microcontrollers are designed to self destruct after 18 - 24 months. It's just pretty much imposible to prove. Just like it will then to prove that so called "persuation".
and you would be happy to go down that route, giving up your privacy down to your thoughts, and perception of reality. Your emotions could potentially change, after all they are mere neurotransmiters released around your brain. You would lose your freedom of choice, as you would be "persuaded" to do as it tells you to do, "persuaded" by feeling of happyness and potentially euphoria. The years of work unions have put in to give us the freedom we now have would dissapear as quickly as it apeared.
Whoa, dude, can the paranoia! First, we have a lot less privacy than you think (read: Lury & Gibson's (not William) novel: "Dangerous Data" for an interesting illustration). Our perception of reality is being manipulated on a daily basis (through the media, government, commercials but even by well-meaning educational establishments or in "scientific" research: I am reading some interesting stuff at the moment on just how effective Prozac and brethren really are...), and everytime you drink a cup of coffee or beer (hmmm...), light up a cigarette or even have that chocolate covered donut you are messing with your neurotransmitters/emotions. Privacy of thought? I can walk through a supermarket while watching couples interact, or parents scream at their kids, and do some interesting psychological formulations. I try not to, of course, because it is none of my business and frankly I'm not that interested... in my case it's just an occupational hazard.
And that is my point: the reason why we have an illusion of privacy is because nobody's that interested in you (or me). Just watch out what you reveal of yourself on the net, OK?
Second: Freedom of choice? I could reel off pages of argument on how that is much more limited than we think. A lot of our behaviour is habitual, automatic (instinctive) responding based on subconsciously learned associations. How often do you really think about what you're doing? Research on insight shows that the reasons we give for our actions are largely reconstructions after the act, based on inaccurate memory and plausibility. And we are a lot more "persuaded" by our basic wiring and instincts/drives than you think. How often do you find yourself glancing at a woman's breasts in passing? Or a nice pair of legs? Reasoned action? I think not.
And Unions haven't given us all that much choice, but that's another story...
My point is that we may as well acknowledge that this is how we are wired, and how we function, and we may as well be conscious of that and influence the process where we can. That's true self-determination --as much as that is truly possible, anyway.
Quote:
But even today mobile phone microcontrollers are designed to self destruct after 18 - 24 months.
Like I said, paranoia. I have an ancient Motorola Startac lying on my shelf here, and it still functions perfectly. So do the old Nokia 3310s still in circulation. The reason I don't use my old Startac however, is because recently I succumbed to the pretty little colour screen and pretty event lights and the polyphonic ringtones that the new V600 sports. Self-destruct circuits? Why bother? Manufacturers have figured out long ago that people will always want the latest gadget, and will compusively upgrade as soon as something sexier hits the market. Like I said, freedom of choice is relative...
There would be law's stoping it at first, just like there are laws for manufacturers to make sure there products do not self destruct. But even today mobile phone microcontrollers are designed to self destruct after 18 - 24 months. It's just pretty much imposible to prove. Just like it will then to prove that so called "persuation".
my mums 54XX phone from when it first came out still works flawlessly.only reason she changed it because she wanted something nicer,something smaller. human nature means we always want something new.something we haven't got at the moment.
Originally Posted by Nexxo My point is that we may as well acknowledge that this is how we are wired, and how we function, and we may as well be conscious of that and influence the process where we can. That's true self-determination --as much as that is truly possible, anyway.
yes thats true, and i'd rather keep it that way, thats my point... Rather than some brain implant releasing chemicals in my brain to influence my thinking or subconsions habits and refexeses. Rather than than some coorporation "telling me" this product is good when holding it by releasing dopamine or something as such in order to "make" me purchase it. It's starting with just simple things such as Microsoft "making you" register their product even though they are not registered under the DPA to ask for any such information, making that request ILEGAL here in the UK. Everything starts small, and changes are very gradual so to make changes unnoticable until you are made to believe it's "normal"
Or Intel and Microsoft wanting all code running on their machine to have been tested and be given a certificate given, probably by Microsoft making small time programers and open source software impossible as they would have to pay a fee to get there software to run. And as there software is free, they have no way of recuperate their loss. But nobody cares, because it won't happen for months, and when it finally gets there it's too late to complain.
Yes the world needs changes, but instead of changing into an even more narrow minded place than it already is. changes should be to a more open minded, a more thrustfull, better place.
maybe i'm an idealist, but i'd rather be hopefull for a better change rather than let things happen for a worst. I don't think of myself as paranoid for seeing something happen and realising where it will lead.
And tbh I don't really care about someone listening to me in a supermarket because they must have a hell of a sad life to want to listen to me asking myself which tin of beans i want. What i care about is someone recording waht i'm doing / talking about / whatever. Because if it's just listening they're gonna forget about it half hour later whereas a recording is permanent. You try and repeat a ten minute conversation word for word, after listening to it once.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo Everytime you drink a cup of coffee or beer (hmmm...), light up a cigarette or even have that chocolate covered donut you are messing with your neurotransmitters/emotions.
The natural release of neurotransmitters is what i'd rather have than some machine releasing it thus telling me this product os good, rather than me trying for myself to see if i like it or not.
Life is about survival. And about trying things out, deciding for yourself if you like something or not. You try something, your subcontious self decides if it's good for your survival or not. So that hopefully next time you see said object you'll hopefully remember if it was good or bad and act accordingly. An example would be the alrmingly high number of obese persons in the world. They could then be programed to no longer like eating butter on their toast, no longer like soda, no longer like anything that may give them that litle bit of extra weight. I'd want the choice of going on a diet or not, rather than being "forced into it".
Rather than than some coorporation "telling me" this product is good when holding it by releasing dopamine or something as such in order to "make" me purchase it.
All good points, but this is exactly what happens when you see a busty, long-legged blonde on a TV/Billboard holding a product while pouting at you suggestively with her doe-like eyes, her diaphanous dress, her just-out-of-bed tousled hair... You look, you experience a visceral response (loads of chemicals released in your brain right there), you desire.
Commercials nowadays are the product of a LOT of psychological research, and boy, do they know how to play us. Not convinced? A lot of illusionists who use "close-in magic" (e.g. street performers who use few or no props) rely on that knowledge of how we think, make decisions etc. to do those astounding tricks that seem almost telepathic. Although you may not be interested in what tin of beans someone will pick, Heinz will be very interested and keen to influence that process.
We also still sell the most harmful addictive substances on earth quite legitimately: alcohol and tobacco. Example: every time you take a puff from a cigarette, nicotine acts on certain parts of your brain seven seconds later.
Quote:
What i care about is someone recording what i'm doing / talking about / whatever.
Also already happening. Your Sensus Poll information is freely accessible. Your credit rating is freely accessible. Your Electoral Register data are freely accessible. Hack a little, and there's your bank account and credit card data (income, place of work, recent transactions, spending patterns, financial obligations, insurance). You got internet access? A hacker can easily find out what sites you visited, when, and form a picture of your interests (or perversions, depending). You got loyalty cards? Imagine what those supermarkets and department stores know about your spending habits. You got health insurance? What information do they store about your physical health and fitness history? Soon our patient records will go on-line too, and then data about your physical and mental health will be hackable too. If someone wanted, with a little bit of hacking and psychological extrapolation they could sketch an eerily accurate picture of you and your life.
It's already happening dude, through a less direct pathway than tapping directly into your brain, but do not kid yourself it's any less influential. My point is: too late to worry now. However, such processes work by influencing your subconscious while bypassing your conscious processes. You can stop this from happening by being consciously aware of what is going on. So don't be a luddite and bury your head in the sand. Instead, learn to know it, use it, control it, and make informed choices.
Originally Posted by Spaced_invader It's starting with just simple things such as Microsoft "making you" register their product even though they are not registered under the DPA to ask for any such information, making that request ILEGAL here in the UK.
Actually Microsoft are on the public register of notified data controllers held by the Information Commissioner, and they are perfectly legally entitled to both ask for and process personal data for the purposes of users registering their products.
Touch screens will only be effective when their cost comes down a lot more unfortunately, and as ppl have stated voice comms for anything other than root commands doesnt make much sense. Some people have dismissed the 'Minority Report' vision of a tacticle interface (by the way go read the original philip.k.dick story un-spielbergised, much better) and yes that is unlikely. But i remember in 'Johnny Nmemonic' (again books better, william gibson) there was a glove + headset interface he used.
Now not many people will go for the headset but i probably would, and the gloves would be easy enough to do in the same manner. A motion capture setup within a 2 meter cubed area say, and gloves rigged with MC sensors. Cutting the cost down on that would be as hard as touch screens though, plus OSs would need there GUIs overhauled or accompanying software written.
Nexxo :).... you seem to take a very 'it will be' view of the whole AI thing if you dont mind me saying. You quote gibson a lot and seem to agree with many of his views regarding 'sentient' AIs without mentioning the flipside of the coin from other points of view. Ghost in the machine is a good manga example, where you have an AI evolved and an AI created in the same story line, who differ from the anthropromorphised images they were designed for as you say, but not their instincts, evolved and created. Whats to say an AI will not find a set of evolutionary traits for itself and follow them through. Say an AI follows through its main command as its 'holy grail' so to speak, a library program and its main command is acquire more knowledge. That in itself is a simple command but if it uses its knowledge to acquire more knowledge.... This is why people dream up AI vs scenarios, because they beleive we'll somehow get in the way, but when the sum knowledge of mankind (almost) is contained in so many computers worldwide it could perform its task without becoming more than a watcher, lurking in the net. But what does the watcher do when its learnt everything ? Cant just find another step forward in the chain for it self, or can it.
I'd also like to draw note to bio-interfaces and AI helpers. Having a head full of machines would be great, gibson reynolds dick asimov clarke, they've all written about it and we've all had our own dreams and ideas. I think reynolds has the best idea (alastair reynolds-revelation space&others) with his plots about the conjoiners, a faction of humanity who live networked in an almost hive state, vocal communication almost a thing of the past. Neural pathways accelerated using medichines and implant looms, percpeptual filters being able to be dropped in anytime, such as children growing up aboard a bleak comet, its interior redecorated for their eyes only, filters changing as they grow and their knowledge expands, accelerated thought.
But lets face it any bio-interface is a long way off, and by that i mean a century or two.
Reynolds again, refers to alpha level personas, simulations of people that have been constructed through observation over years by various surveliance methods, some too complicated to describe. An alpha level could allow a person to have conversation across lightminutes in space say, where realtime communication would be impossible, an alpha level would be sent as an envoy. This kind of monitoring technology isnt as far off as some might think, maybe not the medical side of things but 50 years for the rest id say. If enough places were rigged with these systems, a profile could slowly be built up about your habits, shops, pubs, carparks, your route home, anything, and that would be the marketers dream tool. Paranoid ? No just bleakly realistic :(.
Again like i say Nexxo just trying to offer 'another side of the coin' opinion, big gibson reader myself but i cant say i agree or disagree with his views about much of this, reynolds seems to paint a much more honest sense of the future where the line between technology and biology blurs, and dick or asimov is better for AI related topics, many of their shorts paint varied pictures.
Good column lads, interesting read, nice when things go a little over the top sometimes hehe :).
Originally Posted by Buck_Rogers25 But lets face it any bio-interface is a long way off, and by that i mean a century or two.
you should have a look at the work of kevin warwick and his pioneering work on neural interfaces. His first experiment was a simple transmiter for the computer in the shool to recognise him and open doors and turn lights on and such. That remained in his body for 9 days. His second experiment was a full on neural interface whereby he used an array of 10 x 10 probes planted directly into his nerve. I can't recall the extact nerve, but it was a major one in his left wrist. This remained in his body for a just over three months. With it he and his team performed a number of experiment including remote controlling a robotic hand through the internet using neural signals. and a neural to neural interface between him and his wife. This was a very simple interface but it worked none the less, i agree a full on neural interface, by which i mean being able to read thoughts, emotions, and such is a fairly long way away, bu which i mean no more than 30 years. but simple implants by which i mean extra sences that feed information to the brain (a one way system) will be acheived in my honest opinion within the next 5 to 10 years.
Technology is moving at an incredible rate, and our generation will be the first to see it's own race evolve by means of symbiosys.
I've seen those experiments and i agree there very promising, but as you say they will be simple one way in the years to come, perhaps even some simple two way interface such as the neural signal test experiment expanded, using clusters of sensors to record entire body motion ranges, allowing say driving a car by remote. But i very much doubt whether the user of that technology will have accompanying visual implants for perceptual filtering, thats the one main point with me really. They are tools until they get to the point that they become a part of us, literally as you say symbiosis, and not just for the minority.
And to be honest 30 years seems a bit optimistic, considering most of this tech will be developed under military or govermental supervision before the civilian populus even get a look in, and we all know how they like to hoard technology until their coffers are running low and then they start selling rights to things hehe. Course things could accelerate much faster but most of this technology depends on advancements in nano-tech manufacturing and nano scale manufacturing processes, and although almost every week theres a breakthrough of some sort these days were still in the playground so to speak. I think 50-60 would be a more optimistic estimate, but again like i say, you never know.
Edit to my last post, just remembered about the optical sensors being used for blind ppl today combined withan implant, not sure of technical details now it was a while ago i read it, he could make out crude images on monochrome, a face made black and white spots basically, enough for a blind person to assocaite shapes etc with what there seeing. But its a long way off from full visual intergration, and its about the most advanced there is right now. The more advanced version increased the number of dots in the image and sensors used increasing the resoltuion but its still monochrome. And the equipment that powers it is housed in a small rucksack, fairly cumbersome i'd say. The technology is now up to 1000 pixels in the new generation, but its still like a gameboy image or other. Better than being blind but a long way off from the perceptual filters for all of the future.
yea i heard about that as well. teh experiment i was talking about was done on a shoe string budget, i think the total came to arround £750,000 which for a major scientific breakthrough is amazing. what is harder to find out about like you said military projects they stay top secret for a long while, so all this could have been done before unknown to the public, in that experiment the most expensive peice of equipment was the 10x10 pin array, in the region of £50,000. all this could have been surpassed with a decent enough funding.
Originally Posted by Buck_Rodgers25 Nexxo .... you seem to take a very 'it will be' view of the whole AI thing if you dont mind me saying. You quote gibson a lot and seem to agree with many of his views regarding 'sentient' AIs without mentioning the flipside of the coin from other points of view. Ghost in the machine is a good manga example, where you have an AI evolved and an AI created in the same story line, who differ from the anthropromorphised images they were designed for as you say, but not their instincts, evolved and created. Whats to say an AI will not find a set of evolutionary traits for itself and follow them through. Say an AI follows through its main command as its 'holy grail' so to speak, a library program and its main command is acquire more knowledge. That in itself is a simple command but if it uses its knowledge to acquire more knowledge.... This is why people dream up AI vs scenarios, because they beleive we'll somehow get in the way, but when the sum knowledge of mankind (almost) is contained in so many computers worldwide it could perform its task without becoming more than a watcher, lurking in the net. But what does the watcher do when its learnt everything ? Cant just find another step forward in the chain for it self, or can it.
That's a good point... but what I'm saying, really, is that we simply can't know. We can't apply a human frame of reference on what goes on in an A.I.'s mind. We can't even use evolution/natural selection imperatives, because A.I. (if it comes about) will not have originated in such a survival context. So when a watcher has learned everything, it may not be motivated at all to find another step. It may simply not care.
Of course you're quite right that some A.I. may develop its own drives and motivations one day (I've got Ghost In The Shell, btw, excellent film!)--the phenomenon of Emergence happens a lot in complex systems. But again your guess as to what these drives will be is as good as mine. They may very well turn out to have nothing to do with survival, or competition, or anything even remotely comparable to human (biological) drives and motives. They may be so alien and complicated that they will make no sense to us whatsoever, or have as much relevance to us as, say, the biological and evolutionary drives of an oak tree forrest.
Comments 26 to 44 of 44
AI's might not need there own agendas if someone/some corp. gives them there's.
I think Sience Fiction is a good avenue to explore/determin the consequences of our newest technology
DB
That's absolutely true, but it in no way makes the statement silly in the slightest. If you re-read what I'm alluding to, it is the same as saying "Automobiles have been one of the biggest contributors to highway accidents, which is why we need to change the way we travel around to ensure that these accidents are less commonplace".
Just because it's 'what everyone uses' doesn't make it right, mouse techonology has just been force-fed to people. Anyone who believes the hype that 'The mouse is the most natural input method blah blah blah' will generally have had very little chance to try anything else. Myself, I prefer touch screen technology, however let me weigh up the economics of a £5000 21" Touchscreen vs a £10 mouse.
that is exactly what they will be programed to do, well commercial ones anyway. But what happens when you want to trade it in for a newer model??? it will know it's going to "die", be recicled. how do you think it will react... Will it just accept it's fate like a good litle robot???
Upgrading it will only get it so far, as base code becomes obselete and makes way for newer better technology. look at windows 9x it was doing fine, all on the same code base. But people realised it wasn't that great and just plain trashed it...
All this assumes again that A.I. will have the same basic instincts, drives and therefore emotions that we have. The desire to expand/procreate. The desire to survive... Biological Intelligence only has these drives because it was shaped by the evolutionary forces of natural selection. If we didn't have those drives, we would have been extinct in one generation.
A.I. will not be shaped by those natural selective forces however. A.I. will exist because we created it, and keep making it to the next generation because we keep upgrading it. It may have no internal desire to "live" of its own, or have any ambitions or motivations at all, except for those that were programmed into it. It may of course fake instincts and emotions so that we can relate to it better, but in reality it may be indifferent to its own continued existence. It may have no feelings about it one way or the other. As long as it does not have to be completely self-sufficient, it won't need those drives and logically will not develop them.
Stop using a human frame of reference guys. An A.I. mind will be unlike any mind we can imagine.
Question ... What if/when programed AI Emotions/Responses/Instincts become indistinguishable from the real thing ?
DB
The story "The Humanoids" was written in 58 / based on "With Folded Hands" 57 Hard sience fiction is good way to explore some of the questions/issues/problems/answers/unexpected outcomes before they arise
But I digress. People do get rather paranoid about competition. We've been at the top for ages, and the last thing we want is to be superceded by a New, Improved version of us. Human v.2.0... As the script narrates in Bladerunner, in a deleted scene where Deckard visits his colleague in Hospital after he's been shot by Leon Kowalski (yes, he lived, despite literally being blown through a wall), his colleague cries in despair:
"You know that Skinjob we fried at the Tyrell Corporation? They were six hours into autopsy before they realised it wasn't human! It's over, Deckard --we're washed up! They're allmost US!"
But to worry about competition or staying in control sort of assumes a "them vs us" dynamic which won't be happening. What I think is that by the time technology has developed to the point that we can create A.I. potentially smart enough to compete with us, that we have already merged with this tech. We will already be cyborgs, and "them vs us" will make as much sense as "my foot vs my hand".
After all, what is the measure of a man? As tech progresses, our actions and achievements become more and more products of our mind, rather than of our physical body. At some point, it's the mind that will make all the difference. As A.I. develops human psychological attributes (like feelings, drives, motivations) indistinguishable from ours, we develop cognitive enhancements that make us able to turn the mental tricks of a computer, so that eventually it might be argued that there is no "them" and "us" anymore... They will have become Us, but We will have become Them, too.
DB
and you would be happy to go down that route, giving up your privacy down to your thoughts, and perception of reality. Your emotions could potentially change, after all they are mere neurotransmiters released around your brain. You would lose your freedom of choice, as you would be "persuaded" to do as it tells you to do, "persuaded" by feeling of happyness and potentially euphoria. The years of work unions have put in to give us the freedom we now have would dissapear as quickly as it apeared.
There would be law's stoping it at first, just like there are laws for manufacturers to make sure there products do not self destruct. But even today mobile phone microcontrollers are designed to self destruct after 18 - 24 months. It's just pretty much imposible to prove. Just like it will then to prove that so called "persuation".
Whoa, dude, can the paranoia! First, we have a lot less privacy than you think (read: Lury & Gibson's (not William) novel: "Dangerous Data" for an interesting illustration). Our perception of reality is being manipulated on a daily basis (through the media, government, commercials but even by well-meaning educational establishments or in "scientific" research: I am reading some interesting stuff at the moment on just how effective Prozac and brethren really are...), and everytime you drink a cup of coffee or beer (hmmm...), light up a cigarette or even have that chocolate covered donut you are messing with your neurotransmitters/emotions. Privacy of thought? I can walk through a supermarket while watching couples interact, or parents scream at their kids, and do some interesting psychological formulations. I try not to, of course, because it is none of my business and frankly I'm not that interested... in my case it's just an occupational hazard.
And that is my point: the reason why we have an illusion of privacy is because nobody's that interested in you (or me). Just watch out what you reveal of yourself on the net, OK?
Second: Freedom of choice? I could reel off pages of argument on how that is much more limited than we think. A lot of our behaviour is habitual, automatic (instinctive) responding based on subconsciously learned associations. How often do you really think about what you're doing? Research on insight shows that the reasons we give for our actions are largely reconstructions after the act, based on inaccurate memory and plausibility. And we are a lot more "persuaded" by our basic wiring and instincts/drives than you think. How often do you find yourself glancing at a woman's breasts in passing? Or a nice pair of legs? Reasoned action? I think not.
And Unions haven't given us all that much choice, but that's another story...
My point is that we may as well acknowledge that this is how we are wired, and how we function, and we may as well be conscious of that and influence the process where we can. That's true self-determination --as much as that is truly possible, anyway.
Like I said, paranoia. I have an ancient Motorola Startac lying on my shelf here, and it still functions perfectly. So do the old Nokia 3310s still in circulation. The reason I don't use my old Startac however, is because recently I succumbed to the pretty little colour screen and pretty event lights and the polyphonic ringtones that the new V600 sports. Self-destruct circuits? Why bother? Manufacturers have figured out long ago that people will always want the latest gadget, and will compusively upgrade as soon as something sexier hits the market. Like I said, freedom of choice is relative...
yes thats true, and i'd rather keep it that way, thats my point... Rather than some brain implant releasing chemicals in my brain to influence my thinking or subconsions habits and refexeses. Rather than than some coorporation "telling me" this product is good when holding it by releasing dopamine or something as such in order to "make" me purchase it. It's starting with just simple things such as Microsoft "making you" register their product even though they are not registered under the DPA to ask for any such information, making that request ILEGAL here in the UK. Everything starts small, and changes are very gradual so to make changes unnoticable until you are made to believe it's "normal"
Or Intel and Microsoft wanting all code running on their machine to have been tested and be given a certificate given, probably by Microsoft making small time programers and open source software impossible as they would have to pay a fee to get there software to run. And as there software is free, they have no way of recuperate their loss. But nobody cares, because it won't happen for months, and when it finally gets there it's too late to complain.
Yes the world needs changes, but instead of changing into an even more narrow minded place than it already is. changes should be to a more open minded, a more thrustfull, better place.
maybe i'm an idealist, but i'd rather be hopefull for a better change rather than let things happen for a worst. I don't think of myself as paranoid for seeing something happen and realising where it will lead.
And tbh I don't really care about someone listening to me in a supermarket because they must have a hell of a sad life to want to listen to me asking myself which tin of beans i want. What i care about is someone recording waht i'm doing / talking about / whatever. Because if it's just listening they're gonna forget about it half hour later whereas a recording is permanent. You try and repeat a ten minute conversation word for word, after listening to it once.
The natural release of neurotransmitters is what i'd rather have than some machine releasing it thus telling me this product os good, rather than me trying for myself to see if i like it or not.
Life is about survival. And about trying things out, deciding for yourself if you like something or not. You try something, your subcontious self decides if it's good for your survival or not. So that hopefully next time you see said object you'll hopefully remember if it was good or bad and act accordingly. An example would be the alrmingly high number of obese persons in the world. They could then be programed to no longer like eating butter on their toast, no longer like soda, no longer like anything that may give them that litle bit of extra weight. I'd want the choice of going on a diet or not, rather than being "forced into it".
All good points, but this is exactly what happens when you see a busty, long-legged blonde on a TV/Billboard holding a product while pouting at you suggestively with her doe-like eyes, her diaphanous dress, her just-out-of-bed tousled hair... You look, you experience a visceral response (loads of chemicals released in your brain right there), you desire.
Commercials nowadays are the product of a LOT of psychological research, and boy, do they know how to play us. Not convinced? A lot of illusionists who use "close-in magic" (e.g. street performers who use few or no props) rely on that knowledge of how we think, make decisions etc. to do those astounding tricks that seem almost telepathic. Although you may not be interested in what tin of beans someone will pick, Heinz will be very interested and keen to influence that process.
We also still sell the most harmful addictive substances on earth quite legitimately: alcohol and tobacco. Example: every time you take a puff from a cigarette, nicotine acts on certain parts of your brain seven seconds later.
Also already happening. Your Sensus Poll information is freely accessible. Your credit rating is freely accessible. Your Electoral Register data are freely accessible. Hack a little, and there's your bank account and credit card data (income, place of work, recent transactions, spending patterns, financial obligations, insurance). You got internet access? A hacker can easily find out what sites you visited, when, and form a picture of your interests (or perversions, depending). You got loyalty cards? Imagine what those supermarkets and department stores know about your spending habits. You got health insurance? What information do they store about your physical health and fitness history? Soon our patient records will go on-line too, and then data about your physical and mental health will be hackable too. If someone wanted, with a little bit of hacking and psychological extrapolation they could sketch an eerily accurate picture of you and your life.
It's already happening dude, through a less direct pathway than tapping directly into your brain, but do not kid yourself it's any less influential. My point is: too late to worry now. However, such processes work by influencing your subconscious while bypassing your conscious processes. You can stop this from happening by being consciously aware of what is going on. So don't be a luddite and bury your head in the sand. Instead, learn to know it, use it, control it, and make informed choices.
Actually Microsoft are on the public register of notified data controllers held by the Information Commissioner, and they are perfectly legally entitled to both ask for and process personal data for the purposes of users registering their products.
Now not many people will go for the headset but i probably would, and the gloves would be easy enough to do in the same manner. A motion capture setup within a 2 meter cubed area say, and gloves rigged with MC sensors. Cutting the cost down on that would be as hard as touch screens though, plus OSs would need there GUIs overhauled or accompanying software written.
Nexxo :).... you seem to take a very 'it will be' view of the whole AI thing if you dont mind me saying. You quote gibson a lot and seem to agree with many of his views regarding 'sentient' AIs without mentioning the flipside of the coin from other points of view. Ghost in the machine is a good manga example, where you have an AI evolved and an AI created in the same story line, who differ from the anthropromorphised images they were designed for as you say, but not their instincts, evolved and created. Whats to say an AI will not find a set of evolutionary traits for itself and follow them through. Say an AI follows through its main command as its 'holy grail' so to speak, a library program and its main command is acquire more knowledge. That in itself is a simple command but if it uses its knowledge to acquire more knowledge.... This is why people dream up AI vs scenarios, because they beleive we'll somehow get in the way, but when the sum knowledge of mankind (almost) is contained in so many computers worldwide it could perform its task without becoming more than a watcher, lurking in the net. But what does the watcher do when its learnt everything ? Cant just find another step forward in the chain for it self, or can it.
I'd also like to draw note to bio-interfaces and AI helpers. Having a head full of machines would be great, gibson reynolds dick asimov clarke, they've all written about it and we've all had our own dreams and ideas. I think reynolds has the best idea (alastair reynolds-revelation space&others) with his plots about the conjoiners, a faction of humanity who live networked in an almost hive state, vocal communication almost a thing of the past. Neural pathways accelerated using medichines and implant looms, percpeptual filters being able to be dropped in anytime, such as children growing up aboard a bleak comet, its interior redecorated for their eyes only, filters changing as they grow and their knowledge expands, accelerated thought.
But lets face it any bio-interface is a long way off, and by that i mean a century or two.
Reynolds again, refers to alpha level personas, simulations of people that have been constructed through observation over years by various surveliance methods, some too complicated to describe. An alpha level could allow a person to have conversation across lightminutes in space say, where realtime communication would be impossible, an alpha level would be sent as an envoy. This kind of monitoring technology isnt as far off as some might think, maybe not the medical side of things but 50 years for the rest id say. If enough places were rigged with these systems, a profile could slowly be built up about your habits, shops, pubs, carparks, your route home, anything, and that would be the marketers dream tool. Paranoid ? No just bleakly realistic :(.
Again like i say Nexxo just trying to offer 'another side of the coin' opinion, big gibson reader myself but i cant say i agree or disagree with his views about much of this, reynolds seems to paint a much more honest sense of the future where the line between technology and biology blurs, and dick or asimov is better for AI related topics, many of their shorts paint varied pictures.
Good column lads, interesting read, nice when things go a little over the top sometimes hehe :).
you should have a look at the work of kevin warwick and his pioneering work on neural interfaces. His first experiment was a simple transmiter for the computer in the shool to recognise him and open doors and turn lights on and such. That remained in his body for 9 days. His second experiment was a full on neural interface whereby he used an array of 10 x 10 probes planted directly into his nerve. I can't recall the extact nerve, but it was a major one in his left wrist. This remained in his body for a just over three months. With it he and his team performed a number of experiment including remote controlling a robotic hand through the internet using neural signals. and a neural to neural interface between him and his wife. This was a very simple interface but it worked none the less, i agree a full on neural interface, by which i mean being able to read thoughts, emotions, and such is a fairly long way away, bu which i mean no more than 30 years. but simple implants by which i mean extra sences that feed information to the brain (a one way system) will be acheived in my honest opinion within the next 5 to 10 years.
Technology is moving at an incredible rate, and our generation will be the first to see it's own race evolve by means of symbiosys.
And to be honest 30 years seems a bit optimistic, considering most of this tech will be developed under military or govermental supervision before the civilian populus even get a look in, and we all know how they like to hoard technology until their coffers are running low and then they start selling rights to things hehe. Course things could accelerate much faster but most of this technology depends on advancements in nano-tech manufacturing and nano scale manufacturing processes, and although almost every week theres a breakthrough of some sort these days were still in the playground so to speak. I think 50-60 would be a more optimistic estimate, but again like i say, you never know.
That's a good point... but what I'm saying, really, is that we simply can't know. We can't apply a human frame of reference on what goes on in an A.I.'s mind. We can't even use evolution/natural selection imperatives, because A.I. (if it comes about) will not have originated in such a survival context. So when a watcher has learned everything, it may not be motivated at all to find another step. It may simply not care.
Of course you're quite right that some A.I. may develop its own drives and motivations one day (I've got Ghost In The Shell, btw, excellent film!)--the phenomenon of Emergence happens a lot in complex systems. But again your guess as to what these drives will be is as good as mine. They may very well turn out to have nothing to do with survival, or competition, or anything even remotely comparable to human (biological) drives and motives. They may be so alien and complicated that they will make no sense to us whatsoever, or have as much relevance to us as, say, the biological and evolutionary drives of an oak tree forrest.